Discussion

““PLEASE COMMENT IF YOU DISAGREE OR AGREE IF YOU HATE PAYING FOR YOUR T.V LICENCE!
IF U THINK IT IS DATED AS SOME OF US CHOOSE TO HAVE SKY OR VIRGIN
IF WE CHOOSE TO PAY FOR ANOTHER COMPANYS SERVICE WHY SHOULD WE PAY A T.V LICENCE?
T.V LICENCE IS A WAY OF TAXING EVERY HOME IN THIS COUNTRY!
WHY AS TECHNOLOGY GETS BETTER THE T.V LICENCE FEEL THEY CAN TAX US LAPTOPS PHONES ECT.
REMEMBER WHEN THE T.V LICENCE WAS CREATED A LOT OF THE SERVICES WAS NOT HERE.””

12 replies

The BBC should stick to public service broadcasting such as news and current affairs, leaving other programming to commercial stations. The licence fee is an anachronism is this day and age and should be abolished forthwith. What on earth is the BBC doing paying massive fees to so called celebrities at taxpayers' expense?

@ jezer Well said,the bbc refuses advertising as the public foots the cost and the money to run there shows,the bbc says no to advertising,but they can advertise thousand pound fines to the public and as for the bbcs cuts to jobs and the taxpayers bailing them out mayb they should of relied on a bit of advertising as advertising are willing to pay for there services and as i pay for sky and what i watch, the bbc does not provide so i belive they r steeling from my home every year

Something you should all be thinking when paying for the BBC "I am more concerned and angry that my money has been used to support the employment of certian people (Jimmy Saville etc) who we now know to have committed the most terrible crimes against frightened, vunerable children. I doubt we will ever know just how high and wide the knowledge of this (or even suspicions) reached but I no longer trust the BBC. And I strongly object to them receiving any more money from TV Licences.
Maybe the BBC should give the money made from licences over the last 30 years to the victims and their families? But the BBC should not benefit any further from the fees paid by the public. They should be ashamed

Wasn`t the license originally introduced to control who or what is broadcast over the airwaves? I always thought it was just to pay for regulatory controls to prevent all and sundry from experimenting and clogging the available bandwidth with twaddle . Since regulations should be passed through parliament , with a non-fiscal cost , then surely the broadcasting license is paid by the broadcaster involved and should not necessarily be passed to EVERY person in the land whether they use that particular broadcaster or not.
How come the license fee is only ever advertised on BBC ? Why is it not shown on other channels ? What if someone never watches the BBC - Could they argue that they had no idea that a license is a requirement to OWN a TV never mind watch one ? What if someone just uses a TV to watch DVDs or use it as a monitor for their computer? Is it actually a legal requirement to pay for a company rather than a service? How come that this country , which is an advocate of free speech , could fine or send to jail those who persistently insist on that freedom to choose what they watch and pay for?
I do not use SKY myself but those who wish to watch this service pay this broadcaster to provide the service THEY want . Similarly those who use Virgin Media pay for that service through subscription. This means that those viewers are forced to pay TWICE .
Isn`t it time that the BBC is brought up to date . Many people argue that the BBC broadcasts quality TV and is worth every penny but if that includes such programs as Eastenders or Strictly Come Dancing then I raise my hands in disbelief. Whenever these , or other programs of the same ilk - that includes Coronation St et al , are on I usually change channels in order to find some real entertainment.
It was not intended to pay for overpaid so called celebrities to live the life of luxury in the name of so-called entertainment.
Also I do not use BBC radio either - I have no truck with using commercial Radio complete with some of its banal advertising.

For those who say is rubbish lets enlighten you,sky provides me bbc england,bbc scotland and bbc wales,am i paying twice? as i would have it on normal tv and then if i have sky i have it on there as well,for those who dont like adverts there is a thing called pre record,pause fast forward and rewind,also bbc claim they are the only ones who dont have adverts they are lying because they advertise £1000 fines for not having a tv licence,if you watch sky premier movies they dont have adverts,sky brings cinema movies to our homes,so you must think going to the cinema is rubbish as well.Some of you must be right because they provide the bbc to

The BBC don't need licence fees to remain impartial. That just needs integrity. Integrity is free.
Aside from The Thick of It, which is brilliant, I don't think I have watched a single BBC programme all year. Quality TV is debatable and all comes down to personal taste. The BBC also caters for the lowest common denominator as much as many other channels. As their output deteriorates, other channels are raising their own standards with home produced programming, and also showing the cream of US television, which for about ten years or so, has been producing fine quality, thought provoking shows that have equalled and in some cases surpassed anything we have produced.
The licence fee should be phased out. There is a lot of choice out there and paying for the BBC should be just that; a choice. For all those who dont mind paying, a subscription fee could be implemented. £6-8 per month for access to all BBC services. Those who object would no longer have to pay and in turn would not have access. Commercialism would no doubt soon follow, but there is no rule stating that the BBC have to adhere to other channels trends of having so many commercial breaks. In fact, the BBC could quite easily run a premium service with no commercial interuptions at all for an extra fee. None of this is unrealstic with the way digital services are in place. It is outdated and clearly divides opinion."

've lived at my current address for 15 years, and I've always had a TV, but I've never had a license. It's a total rip off. It's not a subscription, it's a sweeping, across the board backdoor tax. And you've already paid the Tax on your TV. All the license fee does, is subsidises the BBC. And they can totally afford to operate in the same way that other broadcasters do. I get letters telling me there's no license registered at my address, and threatening to send their people around every three months or so, I don't even bother opening them. When their chap comes around, as they do eventually, I'll open the door, and tell him I don't need a license, and when he asks why, I say that I don't own a TV. Yes, it's a bare faced lie, but I don't suffer any twangs of guilt over it.
They write down that I haven't got one, all really polite, then say that they just need to come inside to check. And I'm like, What? He'll repeat himself. "I just have to come in and check what you've told me is true, for my records" Again, I refuse. I've just seen him fill in his records I'll say. And they get really persistent. "Why can't I come in"? I say that I've already given him all the information he needs for his records. And that he can't come in, because it's not convenient.
Now, I know that I've just lied to him, but he doesn't know that, and he's standing on my doorstep, having already been given all the information he's entitled to, and he's there, calling me a liar to my face. I repeat, firmly, that no, he is not coming in. He threatens to come back with an "Enforcement Team" and I say, "OK , go and do that then. You still won't be coming in". I know they have no right of entry whatsoever, even if they can hear a TV in the background. Now he's just trying to Bully his way in, and I don't respond well to Bullies. If I was a little old Lady, or a single mum, I would be feeling really intimidated by now, and would probably have capitulated and let the little twot in.
That is how they get away with charging this ridiculous Tax on people. It's demanding money with menaces. They can only take you to court, if they have been inside and seen you with a TV on. If you just ignore the letters, and don't let them in, there's nothing they can do. Better still, don't answer the door to them. Just because they knock, doesn't obligate you to answer. There's no arrestable offense being committed, so there's no Police action applicable. They can't apply to a Court for a warrant, and they can't make you pay, if you really don't want to pay. That's how I deal with them anyway.

But I don't blame people for coughing up year after year really. It's worth the money just not to have all the hassle for most people, I can see that. But it's still wrong, and a sneaky, bullying way to squeeze a little bit more money out of people who have already paid out for VAT, Sky subscriptions, TV Setups, etc

Why should money paid to a private company like Sky exempt you from contributing to the cost of the BBC programmes you watch on Sky? You do realise that none of your Sky subscription goes to the BBC, don't you? The fact that you're already a criminal who's happy to steal the programmes the rest of us are paying for makes your complaint even more nauseating.

To follow on from Roger, the BBC, in a bid to appease Thatcther agreed to pay her 'bezzie mate' Murdoch/Sky £10million per year to air their programmes...if you don't like paying a licence fee, talk to Sky..they're happy to take the money syphoned from the licence fee.
You're happy to watch the sport and dramas for free, while we put our hand in our pockets for your share? If you're exempt from a licence, fair doo, but self exemption doesn't count ......

The BBC is nothing more than the broadcast division of the Labour Party propaganda team. The vast majority of content is dumbed down, politically biased execrable nonsense. It should be privatised immediately. I don't care how rubbish it is and how politically bent it wants to be, if I'm not having to pay for it. See how long it survives without being kept afloat with money forcibly extracted from taxpayers. The recent revelations of years of turning a blind eye to a paedophile ring run by its employees and the complete failure of its senior management show that it is completely unfit for purpose. I resent having to subsidise something that produces absolutely nothing of interest to me.